coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in London.
6.  His wife died on 12 September 1999 leaving two children, born in 1995 and 1998.
7.  On 30 March 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment a Widowed Mother’s Allowance and thereafter a Widow’s Pension, payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 16 May 2000 the Benefits Agency refused his application because he was not a woman. He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision-maker.
8.  On 5 October 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance to the Inland Revenue for the year 1999-2000. On 12 October 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.
9.  The applicant receives child benefit in the sum of GBP 100 every four weeks.
4.  During 1992 the applicants lent various sums of money to a certain S.D., who was supposed to pay the money back within periods ranging from two to twelve months and at interest rates ranging from 10% to 18% per month (so-called “financial engineering”).
5.  Since S.D. failed to perform her contractual obligations, on 21 March 1994 the applicants brought a civil action against her in the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
6.  In the period before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of Croatia (5 November 1997) the court held several hearings.
7.  On 17 November 1997 the court invited the applicants to advance the costs of a financial expert. On 1 December 1997 the applicants refused to do so, arguing that an expert opinion was unnecessary since they had already submitted a similar opinion to which the respondent had not objected. They invited the court to give a judgment on the basis of the existing evidence.
8.  The court held further hearings on 5 April and 26 October 2001 and 4 July 2003. On the last-mentioned date it delivered a judgment finding for the applicants. The judgment was served on the applicants' advocate on 30 December 2003.
9.  On 12 February 2004 S.D. appealed to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu).
10.  On 8 November 2005 the County Court dismissed the respondent's appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment.
11.  Meanwhile, on 2 December 2002 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) complaining about the length of the above proceedings. On 9 November 2004 the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicants' constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time, awarded 4,000 Croatian kunas (HRK) in compensation to each of them and ordered the County Court to decide the appeal in the shortest time possible but no later than six months from the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette. The Constitutional Court's decision was published on 26 November 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Bridgend.
6.   His wife died on 29 April 1999 leaving two children, born in 1989 and 1991.
7.  In 1999 the applicant enquired about widows’ benefits and he was informed that he was not entitled to such benefits.
8.  In early 2000 the applicant applied for widows’ benefits again and on 13 March 2000 the Benefits Agency rejected his claim.
9.  He lodged an appeal against this decision on 16 March 2000 and this appeal was struck out on 23 May 2000 on the basis that it was misconceived.
10.  On 16 May 2000 the applicant made an oral claim for Widow’s Bereavement Allowance to the Inland Revenue. On 23 May 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit. The applicant was advised that an appeal against this decision would be bound to fail.
11.  The applicant received child benefit in the sum of GBP 100 per month.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Baja.
5.  On 27 January 1997 the applicant’s wife filed for divorce.
6.  After several hearings, on 5 October 1999 the Pest Central District Court pronounced the parties’ divorce, placed the couple’s daughter with the mother, ordered the applicant to pay maintenance and suspended his right of access to his child, as he suffered from paranoid psychosis and, in the court’s view, his conduct was unpredictable.
7.  On 25 May 2000 the Budapest Regional Court upheld part of this decision but remitted certain questions, in particular those concerning maintenance and the applicant’s visiting rights, to the District Court.
8.  The first-instance proceedings were resumed on 23 April 2001. The applicant was subjected to an examination by an expert psychiatrist, in whose opinion his access to the child was feasible only under supervision, given his mental state.
9.  On 17 October 2001 the court held a hearing and issued an order concerning the applicant’s access rights. This decision was quashed on appeal on 16 May 2002.
10.  After several hearings, on 27 June 2003 the District Court issued an order allowing the applicant to meet his daughter once a month for two hours on the premises of a specialised foundation. Relying on the opinion of the expert psychiatrist, it observed that the applicant’s ailment prevented him from having greater access to his daughter, then eight years old. On 4 December 2003 the Budapest Regional Court upheld this decision.
11.  On 25 February 2004 the Pest Central District Court determined the remainder of the action concerning maintenance. In application of section 92(1) of the Family Code, the court also recapitulated the applicant’s access rights, in that he was entitled to meet his daughter every fourth Tuesday, on the premises of the foundation, supervised by a professional.
12.  During these proceedings, the applicant modified his claims on many occasions and filed numerous submissions.
13.  On 9 December 2004 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Yeovil.
6.  His wife died on 17 December 1996, leaving one child born in 1991.
7.  On 20 June 2000 the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow, whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife, would have been entitled, namely a Widow’s Payment (“Wpt”) a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (“WMA”) and thereafter a Widow’s Pension (“WP”), payable under the Social Security and Benefits Act 1992 (“the 1992 Act”). On 3 July 2000 the Benefits Agency refused his claim for WMA from 17 December 1996 to March 2000 because the claim dated 20 June was not made within the three-month time limit and the rest of his claim because he was not a woman.
8.  On 28 July 2000 the applicant appealed. On 31 August 2000 the Benefits Agency wrote to the applicant explaining the reasons for its decision. On 4 September 2000 the appeal was turned down. The decision was then sent to the Social Security Appeals Service. However, such appeal was bound to fail given that no social security benefits were payable to widowers under the domestic law.
9.  On 17 October 2000 the applicant made an oral claim for Widow’s Bereavement Allowance (“WBA”) to the Inland Revenue. These proceedings were still pending on the date of introduction of the claim before the Court and the applicant failed to inform the Court about their outcome. However, it is assumed that such claim was bound to fail. The claim for WBA in the present case would have been treated as a claim in respect of the tax years covering 1996/97 and 1997/98.
10.  The applicant receives child benefit in the sum of GBP 70.20 per week.
6.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lived in İstanbul. He died on 14 June 2005.
7.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
8.  On 7 March 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in Muş on suspicion of being a member of the illegal PKK (the Kurdistan Workers' Party). On 13 March 1994 he was handed over to the Istanbul Security Directorate for further investigation.
9.  On 21 March 1994 the applicant was taken before the investigating judge at the Istanbul State Security Court, who ordered his detention pending trial.
10.  By an indictment dated 23 June 1994, the public prosecutor initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and forty-five other defendants before the Istanbul State Security Court, accusing them, inter alia, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. The prosecution requested that the applicant be sentenced pursuant to Article 125 of the Criminal Code.
11.  On 5 May 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court, composed of three judges including a military judge, decided that the applicant's case should be separated from the file as his final defence submissions had not been submitted to the court.
12.  On 18 June 1999 the Constitution was amended and the military judge sitting on the bench of the Istanbul State Security Court was replaced by a civilian judge.
13.  The case against the applicant continued before the Istanbul State Security Court. In the course of the proceedings the State Security Court rejected the applicant's requests for release, taking into account the nature of the alleged offence and the state of the evidence.
14.  On 5 April 2004 the applicant was released pending trial. The case was still pending before the domestic courts when the applicant died on 14 June 2005.
4.  The applicants, husband and wife, were born in 1928 and 1936 respectively and live in Budapest.
5.  On 1 March 1995 the liquidation of the South Pest General Consumer and Marketing Co-operative (“ÁFÉSZ”) was ordered by the Budapest Regional Court. Each applicant was creditor in these proceedings, holding individual claims.
6.  In May 1996 the liquidator prepared the interim balance sheet (közbenső mérleg) that was sent to the applicants. On 31 May 1996 the applicants raised an objection concerning the interim balance sheet. In January 1997 the Budapest Regional Court suspended the review of the balance sheet until a decision by the Supreme Court. In April 1997 the Regional Court again suspended its proceedings concerning the applicants’ objection. The applicants allege that the Regional Court has never decided upon their objection.
7.  In the resumed proceedings, on 28 July 1999 the Budapest Regional Court accepted the closing balance sheet prepared by the liquidator. The applicants appealed against this decision. On 12 July 2004 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s decision and remitted the case to the first-instance.
8.  In the resumed proceedings, the applicants raised an objection against an action of the liquidator, namely, the sale of real estate belonging to the debtor. In May 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the objection. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision in September 2006. In May 2007 the review bench of the Supreme Court upheld the final decision.
9.  In November 2007 the Regional Court ordered the bailiff to pay the applicants 3,835,643 Hungarian forints (approximately 15,577 euros) for their justified creditors’ claim. The entire sum was paid to them.
10.  According to the information in the case file, the liquidation procedure is still pending.
5.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Bournemouth.
6.   His wife died on 2 November 1999. They had no children.
7.  On 29 November 1999 and again on 17 August 2000 the applicant applied for the payment of social security survivors’ benefits, namely Widow’s Payment and Pension, with the Benefits Agency. On 3 December 1999 he was informed that he was not entitled to any benefit because he was not a woman and that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision maker.
8.  On 21 July 2000 the applicant wrote to the Benefits Agency asking for a reconsideration of his claim. On 26 July 2000 the Benefits Agency again refused his claim. The content of the letter of 3 December 1999 was reaffirmed in a letter dated 25 August 2000.
9.  On 29 June 2001 the Benefits Agency wrote to the applicant stating that they had reconsidered the circumstances in which a formal decision should be given carrying a right of appeal and after reviewing their decision they again rejected the applicant’s claim because he was not a woman. The applicant did not appeal further as he was advised that in any case such appeal would be bound to fail.
10.  On 13 September 2000 the applicant made a claim for Widow’s Bereavement Tax Allowance to the Inland Revenue. On 19 September 2000 he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit.
5.  The applicant was born in 1969 and lives in Zamość.
6.  On 12 September 2003 the Otwock District Court convicted the applicant of having committed a series of robberies acting in an organised criminal group and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment.
7.  On 21 September 2003 the Warsaw Regional Court partly amended the judgment. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.
8.  On 30 June 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
9.  On 16 August 2005 the applicant sent his application form to the Court. The envelope in which it was delivered bears several stamps of the Zamość Prison and a handwritten note: censored, D[istrict] C[ourt] [ocenzurowano SR]. Two sides of the envelope had been resealed with sellotape. The envelope itself was delivered in a plastic cover, apparently sealed by the post office.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Warsaw.
5.  On 3 June 1991 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for dissolution of a co-ownership and division of an inheritance before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). On 18 November 1992 the case was transmitted to the Pruszków District Court.
6.  Between 24 February 1993 and 28 May 2003 the court held 18 hearings.
7.  On 7 June 2004 the Pruszków District Court gave a partial decision in the case. The court held that, following further proceedings, a final decision concerning the distribution of the estate would be given at a later stage. The applicant appealed.
8.  On 9 June 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court, having examined the partial decision, remitted the case to the District Court.
9.  According to the applicant’s submissions, from June 2005 until March 2006 no hearing was listed in her case.
10.  On 22 August 2007 the Pruszków District Court gave a decision and divided the inheritance. It is unclear whether the applicant appealed against that decision.
11.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
12.  On 8 March 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected her complaint for a procedural mistake.
13.  On 11 April 2005 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the 2004 Act. She sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before the Pruszków District Court had been excessive and that just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN - approx. EUR 2,500) should be awarded to her.
14.  On 9 June 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court gave a decision in which it acknowledged the excessive length of the proceedings, finding that there had been some periods of unjustified inactivity (lasting from several months to some two years) on the part of the Pruszków District Court and awarded the applicant PLN 3,000 (approx. EUR 738) in just satisfaction. Referring to the amount of just satisfaction, the court relied on the fact that the applicant and other parties to the proceedings had contributed to their length and that after 2003 the proceedings had been considerably accelerated.
4.  The applicant was born in 1930 and resides in the town of Zhovti Vody, Dnipropetrovsk region, Ukraine.
5.  On an unspecified date the applicant instituted three separate sets of proceedings in the Zhovti Vody Town Court of Dnipropetrovsk Region against his employer, a State-owned company, the Zhovti Vody Construction Department (Жовтоводське управління будівництва), for salary arrears and other payments.
6.  On 13 December 2000 and 31 July 2001 the court found for the applicant and awarded him a total of 4,694.11[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH). On 12 March 2002 the court dismissed the applicant’s third claim as time-barred.
7.  In 2001 the Zhovti Vody Town Bailiffs’ Service initiated enforcement proceedings.
8.  The applicant received UAH 2,142, but the remainder of the awards remains unpaid.
9.  On 5 October 2004 the Ministry of Fuel and Energy liquidated the debtor enterprise and the writs of enforcement were transferred to the liquidation commission.
4.  The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Táborfalva, Hungary.
5.  In 1992 the applicant brought an action in compensation against his former employer. On 12 April 1995 the Budapest Regional Court found for him. On 18 July 1995 enforcement proceedings were instituted. Since the respondent’s liquidation had been initiated on 14 December 1995, the applicant’s claims were channelled into those proceedings in April 1996.
6.  On 13 October 1997 the applicant brought an official liability action against the Budapest Regional Court, seeking compensation for the damage which the respondent court had allegedly caused by not having proceeded with the enforcement of the award due to the applicant (see paragraph 5 above) adequately or in good time. On 3 March 1998 the Pest County Regional Court was appointed to hear the case.
7.  After two hearings, this procedure was suspended on 27 April 1999, pending the termination of the liquidation.
8.  The liquidation was accomplished on 11 March 2002. The sum due to the applicant could not be recovered for want of assets.
9.  The applicant requested that the official liability proceedings be resumed only on 10 June 2004; he had not been able to do so earlier because he had suffered a serious occupational accident.
10.  After a hearing on 22 November 2004, on 9 March 2005 the Pest County Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claims. He did not appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in the town of Bila Tserkva, Ukraine.
5.  The applicant’s husband worked at the State-owned Atomspetsbud company (Державна будівельно-промислова компанія «Атомспецбуд»). On 16 March 2000 he died.
6.  By two judgments of 1 February 2001 the Bilotserkivskyy District Court of Kyiv Region awarded the applicant 8,235.38[1] Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) and UAH 3,270[2] from the Atomspetsbud company in salary arrears due to the applicant’s deceased husband. The applicant received UAH 1,478.84; the remainder of the debts remains unpaid.
7.  By an order of the Ministry of Energy dated 27 June 2002, the debtor company was liquidated and a liquidation commission established. As a result, the State Bailiffs’ Service terminated the enforcement proceedings in the applicant’s case and the writs of enforcement were forwarded to the liquidation commission. The liquidation proceedings are still pending.
8.  On 6 October 2004 the Central Expert Commission on Chernobyl Related Diseases (Центральна міжвідомча експертна комісія по встановленню причинного зв’язку хвороб, інвалідності та смерті з дією іонізуючого випромінювання та інших шкідливих чинників внаслідок аварії на Чорнобильській АЕС) established that the death of the applicant’s husband in 2000 was caused by diseases obtained as a result of his participation in the liquidation of the Chernobyl catastrophe in 1986.
4.  The applicants are husband and wife. They were born in 1965 and live in Novokuznetsk.
5.  In 1993 both applicants subscribed to a State savings scheme for buying cars. The State failed to provide the cars, and the applicants had to sue the Government.
6.  On 1 April 2003 the Ust-Yansk District Court of Yakutia gave two judgments and awarded the ﬁrst applicant 90,610.72 Russian roubles (“RUB”), and the second applicant RUB 108,654.15. These judgments became binding on 30 April 2003, but were not enforced immediately. On the Government's request, on 14 October 2004 the Presidium of the Supreme Court of Yakutia quashed the judgments and dismissed the applicants' claims on the ground that the district court had misinterpreted material laws.
7.  In 2005 the ﬁrst applicant again sued the Government for the undelivered car's price.
8.  On 13 May 2005 the district court awarded the first applicant RUB 108,757.91. This judgment became binding on 24 May 2005. On the Government's request, on 18 May 2006 the presidium quashed the judgment and dismissed the ﬁrst applicant's claims on the ground that the district court had misinterpreted material laws.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 7 February 1994 civil proceedings were instituted against the applicant. The plaintiff made various claims for movable and immovable assets.
6.  Between 3 March 1997 and 2 November 1998 the case was suspended pending the termination of another procedure ongoing between the plaintiff and a third party.
7.  On 6 January 2005 the Pest Central District Court found for the applicant, after having held numerous hearings.
8.  On 17 November 2005 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal (service: 29 December 2005).